It is claimed by many on the right that good art will flourish in the free
market. Most good products do, art being a product it makes sense that the
right's presumption is cogent. In fact one would have a hard time convincing
any conservative otherwise. The free market is the final arbiter of usefulness
if not quality.

However, it appears to me that conservatives applying free market principles
to art are disingenuous. I doubt that conservatives are ignorant of the artistic
plight. They are poor, often under-nourished and for an honest artist, they
are working not only general adversity, but also peer adversity borne of
an industry dominated by the extreme left. The idea that there is a free
market for art is laughable. In the U.S. or Canada, the left are the "artists" by
default and subsidized by their respective governments.

Were art a product like a computer or a service, one could sympathize with
leery investors who would rather put their money where the government isn't
fostering unnatural competition. I wouldn't invest in cable television if
the government subsidized satellite television. But, the fecundity of conservative
values doesn't rest on the laurels of endless channel surfing. But they may
fall to the wayside if it continues.

Television is dominated by deconstructionist, post-modern tendencies. Why
do you think it is that everything the right holds dear is like gossamer,
here in these modern times? Or that Rage Against the Machine can enjoy the
unquestioned success in a system that they pretend to abhor? Likewise with
Madonna. Simply, because post-modern art doesn't require consistency, but
rebels against it and since examining po-mo smacks of construction this too
is moot, the artist isn't required to rebut any criticism. It isn't required
esthetically. The only way to combat post-modern art is to offer an alternative.

This is where the right fails. The conservative movement is long on words
but short on visceral experience. I don't recall ever seeing a screen adaptation
of Atlas Shrugged, though one exists for The Fountainhead, the former is
more appropriate I think. I've never heard of Prometheus Bound being all
the rage on Broadway. Shakespeare is appreciated more for authenticity and
execution than moral value. Poetry, sadly has died a slow and painful death
at the hands of post-modernism, modern poets being more like necrophiliacs
than objective observers. I fear nothing will save it. Music, technically
being outside the world of ideas, will always have a few bright sparks. But
the left will always portray Beethoven as a narcissistic invalid and John
Lennon as the patron saint of modern music.

But it can all change with a little patronage. Help an artist out. I'm not
saying pay for his life. When you can help guide him in the right direction,
do so. Does he need materials? What about books. Maybe he does need some
food or next months rent. If you can afford it and the artist isn't taking
advantage of you, why not? Your dollar is still the final arbiter, if the
artist isn't a productive one, withdraw funding. No committees, no congress
or parliament. Just you and your money. Stop pretending that good art will
magically appear on the shelves alongside of Chumbawumba, The Others or anything
by Michael Moore. Put it where you mouth is, and in time you'll have more
than words to back up your free market ideas.

This is Mathew Kay's first contribution to Enter Stage Right.

Other related stories: (open in a new window)

The
need for conservative and libertarian arts funding by Thomas M. Sipos (May
19, 2003)
The right has been traditionally opposed to arts funding and Thomas M.
Sipos says that means we have little to offer the popular culture. It's
time we built an infrastructure to support the artists on the right